Monday, April 28, 2014

1. I am very upset over MAS employees being held hostage in Beijing by the relatives of the passengers of MH 370. I am upset because they are blaming the wrong people. The loss of the plane is due to the makers Boeing.

2. How can Boeing produce a plane that is so easily disabled? Normally it is entirely possible for the crew, the pilots and co-pilots to communicate even with KLIA. Maybe the captain did not want to. But surely the co-pilot would want to inform ground stations that the plane was not flying according to the scheduled route.

3. The passengers may not notice but the co-pilot would. So would the cabin crew. They are all trained to deal with emergencies if not immediately, at least later.

4. But none of them seemed to have tried. It must be because the whole communication system has been disabled. It must take some effort if the pilot tried to disable the system. The co-pilot would notice and for his own life he would have tried to do something. Was he disabled? Were all the crew members and the passengers disabled?

5. The flight of all passenger planes can be tracked even on a personal mobile phone. I can do it on my phone. If the plane landed I can watch it landing and taxiing. I can even get information on any plane anywhere – what make and model, who it belongs to and where it is flying from and its destination.

6. I believe there are equipments on the plane which allows it to be tracked – probably by Global Positioning System.

7. Sophisticated cameras on the spy-satellites operated by some countries can actually photograph a man on the ground and even identify him. Surely the cameras can see and photograph a 63-metre aircraft.

8. But the aircraft disappeared completely. I think on everyone’s mobile it has disappeared. Some equipment on the aircraft must have been disabled. Even the backup must have been disabled.

9. Boeing built this aircraft. Boeing must explain how all these means of tracking the plane can be disabled, can fail. Either Boeing technology is poor or it is not fail-safe. I would not like to fly in Boeing aircraft unless Boeing can explain how all its system can fail or be disabled.

10. Remote control technology is now very sophisticated and powerful. Is it true that Boeing has installed remote control equipment on the aircraft to prevent hijacking? If it did why did it not direct the aircraft to land safely? Is it possible for third parties to take control of the aircraft remotely?

11. When a plane crashes on land or sea there would be debris or oil slick. None has been found so far. Can it be that the plane remained intact on crashing and sank with no trace and no one launching the lifeboat doors as we are told all these aircrafts are equipped with?

12. Can one believe this plane quietly floated down into the raging sea and sank conveniently in the deepest part (7miles deep) of the Indian Ocean?

13. It is standard practice that when a plane crashes, a team of experts would arrive at the scene soonest so as to find the cause of the crash. Boeing and the authorities in the manufacturing country should be looking out for the plane. Maybe the plane type should be grounded. But Boeing has shown no interest and had said practically nothing.

14. MAS has been flying numerous kinds of aircrafts and has a good record. The pilots are well-trained. Even if the pilot wants to commit suicide the co-pilot and the cabin crew would not allow him to do so without trying something. But no one, not even the passengers did anything. Maybe it is because they have been somehow incapacitated.

15. Boeing must answer all these questions. Boeing must demonstrate possible ways for the communications system to be disabled. Boeing must accept responsibility for building an aircraft that can disappear in mid-air so completely.

16. MAS is not at fault, lax security or not. MAS flew a plane fully expecting it to perform the task. But the plane has somehow behaved differently. Who is responsible? Not MAS but certainly the makers of the plane – Boeing Aircraft Corporation.

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

1. ​We all know what a lobby is. But in the U.S. lobby refers largely to people specialising in influencing the Government through their contacts with the Congressmen and Senators and members of the Government including the President. We don’t have lobbyistsin Malaysia. They would be considered as cronies of the Government.

2. ​In the U.S. the lobbyists are paid to work for certain interests. The Cuban lobby at one time lobbied successfully for the U.S. Government to purchase sugar from Cuba. There was also a lobby firm which was hired by Malaysia to influence the U.S. Government not to undermine the tin, rubber and palm oil markets. We were not very successful.

3. ​But the most powerful lobby in the U.S. is the AIPAC (America Israel Public Affairs Committee). It can reach the President, all members of the American Government and all Congressmen and Senators as well as their staff at any time. This lobby which was responsible for U.S. support for the setting up of Israel and subsequent pro-Israel policies, is so powerful that candidates for President and other offices in the U.S. Government have to literally pledge support for Israel to his lobby or they would lose in elections.

4. ​An American Congressman of five terms lost the election after he wrote a book exposing the influence of the Jewish lobby. So powerful is AIPAC that not only does it ensure U.S. support for Israel policies but also U.S. funding of billions of dollars to the Israel Government.

5. ​For the U.S. the lobby system is totally democratic as ownership of firearms by all citizens is democratic. Malaysians would never think of condemning this system. For Malaysians, especially the liberal NGOs, and the opposition, everything and anything that is done by the U.S. and the West are regarded as democratic. They would never condemn the US for this blatant fee-based influence-pedalling.

6. ​And of course we will agree to the TPPA irrespective of how much the majority of Malaysians are against it.

7. ​Clearly while the West condemns us for not allowing freedom of the press and cronyism, the west is blatantly practising censorship and cronyism.

8. ​I will not mention other undemocratic practises of the great advocates and crusaders for democracy and clean Government. Tapping phone calls and writing dossiers on their own citizens are now accepted democratic practices in the name of patriotism and national security.

Friday, April 11, 2014

1. During my time as Prime Minister, both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister were jointly responsible for national security.

2. At times I held the post of Defence Minister while the Deputy Prime Minister is the Home Minister responsible for the police. At times as Prime Minister when I decided to assume the Home Minister portfolio, the Deputy Prime Minister would be appointed Defence Minister. There were only on a few occasions when the situation demanded it, ordinary Ministers were appointed to the Defence portfolio. This is because the issue of national security is of great importance.

3. On Nov 20, 1985, I led a massive private sector delegation to China because I believed there were abundant trade opportunities with China which had then only opened up to external trade participation.

4. I cannot recall Tun Musa (Hitam) coming up to me to ask me not to go to Beijing but he was, with many others, at the airport, to wish me well on my trip to China. Even at that time I cannot recall if he (Musa) had advised me against going abroad.

5. The Memali incident took place on 19 November 1985, a day before I left. In a police operation such as this, a tragedy could happen. In this case four policemen and 16 criminals were killed. Quite a number were wounded.

6. I was very confident in the ability of the Deputy Prime Minister to handle the situation that I appointed him as Acting Prime Minister. It was he who replied to YB Gooi Hock Seng (Bukit Bendera) in the Dewan Rakyat on Nov 20, 1985. YB Gooi had asked for a postponement of the Dewan Rakyat to discuss, the “Perintah Berkurung akibat Pembunuhan di Baling, Kedah” – (Handsard) – (Imposition of Curfew due to the killings in Baling, Kedah).

7. I returned home on Nov 28, 1985. When I was abroad, there were no incidents that could not be handled by the Deputy Prime Minister who was then the Acting Prime Minister.

8. Each portfolio came with its own set of responsibilities. In dealing with crimes, the responsibility was with the police. In terms of making a decision when there is a major threat to national security, the Minister is responsible, at least in endorsing the action to be taken.

9. Tun Musa admitted that it was his responsibility. In the system of Cabinet that we practise, all Cabinet members, especially the Prime Minister bears responsibility.

10. I don’t believe Musa foresaw the loss of lives resulting from his decision. As he had said in his reply to YB Tuan Gooi Hock Seng, “it is the duty and responsibility of the Government to ensure that security of the country exists at all times for the welfare of its citizens and for the overall stability of the country. This, the Government will not compromise…”

11. The issue with regards to me not being in Malaysia when the incident occurred was not spread by me. I did not mention this at all in my book. What is publicly known is that Dato Musa Hitam was the Home Minister and Deputy Prime Minister at that time. The Inspector General of Police discussed and reported to him as the Home Minister. The Home Minister is also involved in making the decision on actions that needed to be taken. It is surely unbecoming if when things were going well, only then one admits to the responsibility.

12. It has to be remembered that the policemen were killed before they returned fire. It is very unfortunate that while the deaths of Ibrahim and his followers are remembered and they were even declared as martyrs, the deaths of the members of the security forces are forgotten.

13. Yes, this incident should not have happened. But do we allow it to fester and spread before we act? Look at what is happening to other countries now. Look at what is happening in some other countries now because the police are not allowed to take act effectively.

1. During the time when I was leading the Government, I was accused by Western nations, in particular by the Western media of controlling the press. Since retirement I read a lot about the administration of Western countries. The censorship they practise on their press and publication is more stringent than anything we have seen here.

2. The American and Western media and publishers are totally forbidden to say anything unseemly about the Jews and in particular Israel. They may also not report about the unAmerican activities of the Jews in their own country.

3. I read a book on banking, on the setting up of the central banking system, on how the banks finance both sides in the wars of Europe, how they actually manipulate the politicians into going into meaningless wars so they can earn profits from lending the money they created out of thin air. They abuse the financial systems to such an extent that financial crises would plague the countries and even the world every now and again. And when they go bankrupt they force Government’s to borrow money from them to bail out their companies and banks.

4. The creator of the banking system and the setting up of the Federal Reserve System as the central bank of the United States was Rothschild and members of his family. Almost all the other great bankers in the U.S. and European countries were people with clearly Jewish names. Yet throughout the book of 600 over pages there was no mention at all that they were Jews.

5. Why is this so? It is because effectively this fact is not allowed to be mentioned. The Jews of the world demand that nothing bad may be said about Jews. All Western Governments all concur. Any unsavoury reference to the Jews and to their depredations will earn the condemnation not just of the Jews but also of Western Governments as “anti semitic.” In today’s world no one is allowed to be anti-semitic (Incidentally the Arabs are also Semitic people). And the media and publishers must never publish anything that may be considered anti-semitic. If they try they will be censored.

6. One can condemn any race or any nation for anything whether false or true but no one may condemn the Jews. If anyone does that, his statements or his book or article will not be published. Only unknown publishers or the writers themselves may publish. The great bookshops will not sell them.

7. It is clear that there is censorship in the West and it is even more rigid. In fact there are Western countries which have laws to punish anti-semitic utterances.

8. When a British journalist, David Irving, wrote that the number of Jews killed by the German Nazis may not be 6 million but less, he was arrested when he visited Austria, tried and jailed for being anti-semitic. That is the extent of censorship in Europe. Even if you say anything supposedly anti-semitic in another country, you may be jailed by any European country.

9. The West has therefore no right to lecture others about freedom of speech, of the media or of publication. They themselves do not practice what they preach. They are the worst censors in the world.